Law School to Allow Student Participation At Faculty Meetings

Ten Law students will attend Law School Faculty meetings, beginning next fall, as full participants without voting privilege.

The student representation is part of a report from the School's Committee on Governance which the faculty approved yesterday.

The report also provides for the creation of a student-faculty Law School Council next fall to "consider any matter of Law School policy or practice touching the interests of students."

The faculty unanimously adopted the 20-page report after three hours of discussion and only minor changes. The one substantial alteration concerns the composition of the new council.

The faculty, with the Governance Committee's approval, made it mandatory that the 22-member council select at its first meeting "eight additional student [members], chosen to represent student publications, student clinical programs and other identifiable student groups."

Excluding the Students

Before the meeting began, the Governance Committee made several wording changes in its proposals, one of which clarifies the conditions under which the student representatives may be excluded from faculty meetings.

The committee changed the condition of "any case in which the dean shall determine that the best interests of the Law School would not be served by the attendance of students at a particular meeting" to "any case in which the dean or faculty shall determine that an executive session of the faculty should be held."

Under the original recommendation, the council had the option of choosing four additional student members to "represent organized and identifiable student groups."

Five of the representatives, who will serve one year terms, will be chosen from the Law School Council by a vote of its membership.

The others will serve as the representatives of five Law School standing committees which the council designates each year "on the basis of theDictionary] is an expression of firm resolve... Our report shows that there are qualified women scholars for junior and senior appointments, and therefore we feel that departments and individual Faculty members should put themselves on record in favor of having more women."

The only Faculty member to actually speak against this motion - although it received clearly more "Nays" than any of the other points - was Andrew M. Gleason, Hollis Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy, who was also the one dissenting voice on the Faculty Council last week.

Obligation

"The first motion says we are under an obligation to increase the number of women," Gleason said, "a fine thought, although I am not quite sure why we endorsed the obligation.... I basically endorse the goal, although not the formal statement of it."

He opposed, however, the role of the Standing Committee, which, according to the report, "shall consult directly with any department whose report [to the Dean on hiring of women] is unsatisfactory."

"This goal can best be attained by action of the deans," Gleason said. "I don't like the idea of the committee riding through the departments."

The first amendment from the floor - an amendment from the left - came from A??thur MacEwan, assistant professor of Economics. MacEwan moved that point three - the pregnancy extension - be expanded to apply to the professor whose wife becomes pregnant during his appointment.

"It is implicit in point three as stands that child-raising is the job of the woman," MacEwan said. "It is terribly important to recognize the desirability of equalization of child care for men and women."

'Faculty Neanderthals'

Supporting this amendment, Anthony G. Oe?tinger. Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Mathematics, said, "In the desire to ingratiate themselves with the Neander??hals on the Faculty, the authors of those motions have put sexi?? implications into the legislative history."

"I don't feel we are ready to accept this as friendly," said Walzer. "It is a socially advanced proposal, and we don't want to tie a reform that can pass with one that can't."

The amendment lost, 162-72.

A similar proposal - to expand point three to include adoption of children - was put f??th by David G. Hughes, professor of Music. It was defeated 161-80. Point three later passed unanimously.

The only other amendment - proposed by Seymour Martin Lipset, professor of Government and Social Relations - added a condition to point two prohibiting part-time appointees from holding teaching or other jobs during the term of their appointment. It was defeated by voice vote.

Seconding point one, Emily D. Vermeule, Zomu?ray-Stone Radcliffe Professor, met with general approval when she read a quote in Greek. Translated, what it said was, "She is a virgin from the neck up - a woman below."

"It is only the qualities of women from the neck up that should concern us here," Vermcule said.